Mitt Romney’s recent choice of Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential nominee has brought forward question I have oft-considered back to the forefront of my mind. The reason for this simple. If Mr. Ryan is known for anything, it’s his ruthless economic ideal. It’s no secret that Romney has had to adopt a more hardline stance on several occasions throughout his campaign. His not-so-secret past as a relative moderate is something he’s trying to leave behind as he runs for president. The most recent issue of The Economist suggests that what Ryan brings to the campaign might just be Romney’s biggest challenge of this ilk so far. Whilst much discussion of the Republican move to the far-right has focused on ethical problems, Ryan represents a brutal economic stance and commitment to small government. In the event of a Romney-Ryan administration, it is undoubted that many of America’s poorest would suffer profoundly as a result of Ryan’s plans to shrink welfare spending. This is obviously not to say that this is a direction for the Republican Party. This is merely a radical extension of the economic-right, neo-liberal Republican heresy of the past 30 years. And yet throughout this time and including the present, a specific branch has remained loyal to the party. Millionaires and corporates, you say? Well, yes them. But we mustn’t forget another set that vehemently put their a cross next to that GOP candidate… the white working classes. Only recently have we started examining this apparent contradictions of interests. Simply why is it that white Americans on the lower stratus of society seemingly buy into the big business ideology? I am also going to attempt to understand why British people like myself cannot comprehend what we observe across the pond.

My first argument is that these supporters have become so entangled with the other aspects of the Republican ideology that the economic policy evades their concerns. As America moves through groundbreaking social change such as legalisation of gay marriage in several states, perhaps New York most significantly, moral issues have come to dominate the political dialogue. Republican politicians especially are accentuating their religiosity and communicating their evermore ardent commitment to strong viewpoints on these concerns. In reaction to the brief surge of the strongly conservative Tea Party, our average Republican candidate has had to step into this realm to appeal to remain in correlation with the rhetoric seen to be dominating popular opinion. It is for this reason that he or she is now not only anti-abortion, but anti-abortion even in relation to cases of incest or rape. Issue politics are no stranger to those on all sides of the political spectrum, but this is inarguably one of the most prominent demographic-related examples of such. These working class whites see themselves so morally disparate from the socially liberal Democrats that voting for them is entirely unfathomable. It is important to think of it in these emotive terms, for these qualms are something that the layman is more likely to think about on a personal level. And without trying to offend, I feel it’s quite reasonable to suggest that these are political choices that your average person feels they actually understand. Ultimately, most Americans are unsure as to how they would fix the economy, but exactly how they feel in relation to moral quandaries. And this is without delving into the importance of religion. For many, religious beliefs trump political preferences without exception… despite many Republican proposals often not resembling anything Jesus might have condoned. Author Jonathan Haidt, writing in The Guardian, even compared US the stylings of US politics to that of religion, in line with other scholars of nationalism that suggest patriotism in the states has distinctive religious characteristics. I personally believe that these things have become intertwined in the minds of certain Americans (with more than a little help from the “Pledge of Allegiance”). Whilst no political party can afford to shy away from demonstrating what makes it truly American, the Republicans have tended to succeed more in doing so in extremely basic terms.

One example of this is their successful branding of anti-interventionist policies as what freedom and liberty really mean. Whilst I find it rather difficult to comprehend this definition of freedom and why it is considered desirable, the idea prevails as one of the overarching foundations of the US mindset. By linking their current policy ideas to the lynchpin that is the US constitution, you convince some that you represent what America was designed to be. Sometimes I wonder if this could possibly still be linked with lingering anti-communist sentiment. Policy in the United States throughout the latter half of the 20th century was after all essentially designed to be everything that the USSR was not. This is why the US places “individual responsibility” in such high esteem… as any form of safety net on part of government is automatically seen to resemble their Soviet adversaries. But surely this could not still be an issue in 2012, when the end of the USSR is slightly older than the 22 year old writing this blog? Party-political mud-slinging of the last five years tells us us the contrary. Republicans would not be so quick to label Barack Obama as a “socialist” if they didn’t feel the word still carried a wealth of negative connotations for large sections of the American population. Such tarring can lead swing voters to err on the side of caution. Even though the Democratic party cannot genuinely be considered socialists in any true sense of the word, it’s far easier for Republicans to argue the case that they present the least socialist option on the ballot paper. After all, if some believe that any government intervention whatsoever equates to pure socialism, the Democrats really do not possess a counter argument.

Additionally, there is always an case to make for the effects of habitual voting across time. There are undoubtedly swathes of people out there that vote in a particular way simply because they or their family always has in the past. This is often despite huge changes in a party’s outlook across time. This is a common trope I found on the doorsteps as a persuasive canvasser, but I genuinely implore a Labour party supporter to tell me that the party is the same one now that it was 25 years ago! I often see accusations of this ilk in relation to the GOP, markedly with reference to the party’s ever more radical values. Some have suggested that the party of today would be entirely unrecognisable to former stalwarts such mid-century president Dwight Eisenhower. Jeb Bush, best known as a former governor of Florida and as George’s brother has even suggested that Ronald Reagan would be not be chosen as a GOP candidate in modern times, an assertion repeated by the current president also. This is despite the party and conservative commentators’ continued reverence or Reagan. But why do these people continually evoke Reagan? Surely the working class Republican support are only angered by mention of the man owing to their treatment throughout his term of office the 1980s?

Well… not quite. See, whilst the working classes in the UK and in the US suffered rather similarly under Thatcher and Reagan respectively, this demographic in the former nation haven’t forgiven the related political party, whilst in the latter they never significantly drifted. In the UK, it could be argued that the working class Conservative is dead. To people of my generation, it seems amazing that they ever comprised a mentionable proportion of the electorate. The only one that i’ve ever known was my late grandmother, whose tiny flat was never without a copy of “The Spectator.” But her generation has passed on and with it, so has the last bastion of working class conservatism in this country. One cannot help but believe this comprises part of the reason why modern Brits are so baffled by this notion stateside. I suppose we can find solace in the fact this is not the only aspect of US politics that leaves us truly befuddled. And considering my inability to come to a definite conclusion here, it seems that this matter will have to remain on this very long list for the time-being.

However, this does not mean I do not invite anyone with thoughts on this matter to ponder with me. Why not do so via the comments box?

Like this:

Now over a week has passed since the vaguely shambolic Olympic closing ceremony (the clear highlight of which being featured as the subject of my previous post.) Without the ongoing day-to-day excitement of the Olympics to verbaciously detail and a good fortnight remaining until what promises to be a stellar Paralympic games, the broadsheets have progressed through a specially modified four stages of grief. Basking in the afterglow, anxiety about returning to normality, then lapsing into cynicism before slowly returning to our everyday routine of complaining about everything the government do.

That last step has been particularly involved in the discussion about Olympic legacy. It was decidedly inconvenient for both David Cameron and education secretary Michael Gove that the media had readymade anti-sport dirt on the government for directly after the Olympics. The “playing fields” controversy has therefore featured possibly more prominently in the news that it may have otherwise. However, I would say that it’s certainly one small negative feature amongst the “Olympic legacy” on sport. Yet again, such an event puts focus once again on the next generation, and the prominence once again falls to school sports.

I find this almost amusing, as I have with all discussion of school sport in terms on lasting effect on human wellbeing and contributing to the overall fitness of kids. It is true that there has been a great deal of success in increasing the hours spent doing sport in school in recent years, but the pervading dialogue that surrounds the discussion of it is painfully simplistic. It’s convenient for our politicians to view school sports in this way, despite the fact that none of them are stupid enough to genuinely believe is coming out of their mouths. The consensus is a step-by-step process that assumes that school sports are making a child more healthy and creating a positive attitude towards sport within the child, one that is likely to encourage participation in later life.

This is contrary to mine and what I safely assume to be swathes of other people’s experience of school physical education. Before venturing into detail, it is probably best to highlight that this does not incorporate primary school gym sessions. I can safely say that I enjoyed those years and remained a fairly active child throughout that time, a child that enjoyed running, cycling and a kickabout. This was until the tyranny of high school came into play. See, high school physical education was different. The first thing I noticed is that both teachers and physically gifted pupils took the pursuit entirely more seriously that I had been used to, thereby sapping any morsel of fun to be had clean out of the process. Sporty classmates became ferocious in their quest for victory, and quite obviously came to see those that may be considered mediocre sporting talents to be a downright hindrance to them, rendering their attitudes extremely abhorrent and childish. I guess this is something to be expected from teenagers, but i’d argue that those in charge were almost as bad.

What I believe the Olympic legacy could be, is an overhaul of teaching methods. I found it both amusing and sad to hear athletes such as Mo Farah laud their old PE teachers so heavily when so many people consider their’s to be amongst the least inspiring characters they’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter. My overarching memory of physical education is that the dismissive attitudes were not restricted to the pupils. I am absolutely resolute in my belief that Physical Education teachers do far more harm than good when it comes to inspiring a dedication to sport in pupils that may not have developed that passion otherwise. Infact, one thing I do notice is that they are exceptional at motivating those with an existing drive and clear passion in a particular field of sport, and this is why people need not worry too greatly about Team GB’s future stars. However, their instense concentration on these students is mirrored by what I consider an ambivalence at best and contempt at worst for pupils that aren’t quite so gifted. It is for this reason that I remember an overwhelming number of those ever-so-valuable hours of physical activity involving a depressing amount of standing around doing very little that could be described as such. I believe also that this negative experience of sporting authority is arguably one of the primary factors that people choose not to continue with it once free of the constraints of compulsory physical education. Unpleasant experiences from school darkly colour people’s perceptions of sport. Why would one voluntarily put oneself under this critical gaze of my own volition?

However, the Olympics has changed me in one way. Namely, I no longer think negatively of all of those blessed with sporting talent. For years I have tarnished athletes as either repugnant or simply banal. I’ve long thought “Sports Personality of the Year” was an oxymoron. However, seeing the Olympians on television brought their humanity to the forefront of my mind. I’m hoping that another legacy is that tolerance is offered in the opposite direction also. Both regular participants in sport and those teaching it are amongst the guilty parties in something I find all too common. The lack of acceptance for novices and the physically untalented even within adult sport and leisure pursuits is rather upsetting and all too similar to the school playing field or gym hall. It’s something that us beginners notice and take to heart. It’s often what stops many of us from progressing beyond beginner status at all. I myself have recently taken up swimming, and I still can’t help but feel paranoia ebbing in under the critical gaze of the supervising instructors and more competent swimmers. It felt disheartening, despite the fact that my performance is entirely reasonable and perhaps even impressive for someone that has not swam for 10 years and has never attended formal lessons. It is for this reason that I have vowed to persevere. It’s an obvious observation but carrying on is the only way any of us without natural talent or pre-existing experience will ever improve.

So I implore that the legacy of the Olympics be just that. Whilst very little can be done about the intolerance of teenagers, those in authority have to take a stand and resolve for improvement. If the majority believe a sporting Britain is a better Britain, we have to allow everyone a chance. It’s about increased participation and not alienation. The display of some astounding Olympic prowess has inspired scores of people whose eyes previously glazed over at the mere mention of sport in a way none of us had previously thought possible. If the government can convince PE teachers to find a way to do the same, or even simply not to dash the hopes of these people before one can say “Fosbury Flop”, Britain gets the gold medal.

In a post that may have perhaps been more topical a week or so ago, I am going to explain my admiration of the Spice Girls. The general aim is to try and contend with the swathes of naysayers facing the girls before their performance at the Olympic Closing Ceremony last Sunday. One couldn’t navigate Twitter without colliding with someone bitter and angry about the prospect of a Spice Girls appearance, especially in conjunction with the concert’s theme, that being “a symphony of Great British music.” I can understand why many were of this mindset. Enough time has passed now since what i’m going to call the “Spice Age” of 1996-98 for their momentous fame and impact to have faded. Many young adults are now too young to even remember this particular period. The reason I wish to discuss the Girls is because the week following their reunion has reminded me of a huge glut of childhood moments that only highlight to me why the Spice Girls have more than earned their place not only in the ceremony, but in the long and prestigious history of British pop more generally.

As I have stated previously, I have spent the week with a flurry of distinct Spice-related memories ebbing their way into my brain. Receiving the cassette of the first album to appease my boredom as the parentals dined with friends downstairs, watching the video for “2 Become 1” on TV on Christmas Day 1996, discussing the vulgarity of Mel B’s tongue stud in the toilets at school, forcing my mum to get my navy Adidas tracksuit bottoms with green stripes because Melanie C had worn them in the “Wannabe” video, thinking that the girls had tied the man to the car in the video for “Say You’ll Be There” so they could kiss him, reading my friend’s Spice Girls annual in her bedroom, the poster in the corner of my childhood bedroom, visiting another friend just after Christmas 1997 and listening to her single of “Mama” together, dancing to “Stop” in the bottom right hand corner of the hall at the Summer disco, actually being jealous that my neighbour had been given the “Spiceworld” album as a present after being knocked down by a car, Melanie C on he cover of the “Top of the Pops” magazine World Cup ’98 issue, listening to the charts as “Goodbye” became their third consecutive Christmas number one, even merely seeing their dolls in shops and their faces on Pepsi cans. The point I have summarised from this myriad of recollections is that the Spice Girls figured so heavily in mine and everybody’s lives during that period of time that it genuinely feels somewhat like an era. Those that aren’t fans of the pop music find it incredibly easy to amalgamate the Spice Girls with the barrage of bubblegum that followed them. The reality is that they were so much more. They were a phenomenon that transcended the world of pop music and fast inserted themselves into the realms of international popular culture. It’s a level of ubiquity usually reserved for solo stars, and I feel comfortable claiming that no group has achieved this since. It’s for this reason that comparison to similar groups, such as Girls Aloud for example, are entirely null and void. Whilst I extremely enjoy the output of Girls Aloud and they are similarly respected by appreciators of pop music, the comparisons tend to fall flat if one dares to venture any further into this analogy. The obvious disparity in international success is only one of the factors that sets the groups apart. For me, it’s the embedding of the Spice Girls into the public consciousness in such a short space of time that makes them so impressive. Your friends, your family, everyone you knew, regardless of age, regardless of their place in life, regardless of everything, were familiar with the Spice Girls. Even if they were consumed with loathing at the very sight of them, they could name every one, whether it be by their real names or their enduring novelty monikers.

What is even more significant than this is the timescale in which the all took place. The Spices were essentially as close as you could get to an overnight sensation before widespread internet use. Their rise was meteoric. This sentiment brings me to my first video of this piece.

This now infamous clip is just astoundingly enjoyable even with endless watches. It also never fails to make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It of course helps that “Who Do You Think You Are?” is quite easily my favourite Spice Girls track, but just sensing the electric atmosphere of the arena and seeing the reveal of the now iconic Union Jack dress is a delight. I chose the version with Ben Elton’s full spiel beforehand on deliberately. Dodgy jokes aside, I feel it encapsulates what i’m trying to put forward. More specific contextualisation helps here also. One has to consider the fact that the girls were relative nobodies only 8 months prior to this recording. My assertions about their remarkably swift ascent into British popular culture can be observed in the following example from only a month after the events of the above video.

To be lampooned on such a scale was a sign that Spicemania had truly arrived. Not solely via a “French & Saunders” sketch but a nationwide fundraising opportunity. Whilst I was younger than the girls that the comedians appear to be portraying, the idea that they present remains very familiar to me. As a 10 year old, myself and some classmates tried to make our own themed girlband as well. It represents, albeit humourously, what was genuinely occurring across the country at the time. The Spice Girls by now represented accessible family humour, as in only 9 months they had made themselves familiar to a widespread and diverse audience with their simple appeal and quirky gimmicks.

By the time the “Spiceworld” album rolls around, the girls are now given the opportunity to remark upon the scale of their unprecedented conquering across the previous year. They chose to do so through what I now consider my favourite video of their’s.

“Spice Up Your Life” is probably the most (or only!) concept-heavy video that the band released. The setting is a futuristic dictatorial dystopia in which the cult of Spice has taken over. The combination of these themes with the sentiment of the song feels almost like the group sticking two fingers up to those that were becoming increasingly fatigued with their omnipresence. It may sound absurd but I do feel that the video shows us hyper-exaggerated elements of the reality of the time. The band were now, in essence, inescapable in many ways. Even if one avoided the music, their corporate deals and the endless line of branded tie-in products were everywhere. By the end of the year, the group would even have forayed into cinema. Tensions were beginning to run high and saturation point was nigh.

When we get to 1998, things begin to slow somewhat. However, this less manic period produced one of the girls’ most critically-acclaimed releases. I feel as though “Viva Forever” might be the only Spice single capable of convincing “real-music”-loving skeptics that the girls possess the credibility required to be so highly lauded. Although clearly recorded before Geri Halliwell’s shock departure in May 1998, the song managed to perfectly capture the sombre mood of the group after this event. Put simply, “Viva Forever” is an irresistible piece of engaging “atmospop” and should appeal to anyone with a fondness for the genre. The meticulously created and beautifully stylised video is memorable also for being entirely unlike the band’s prior efforts. Once again, it’s almost as if the makers anticipated Geri leaving, with the entire video featuring no appearance from the group other than in animated form.

This is where I explain why I earlier limited the “Spice Age” from 1996-1998. Essentially this is because it feels clear to me that the band never recovered after saying farewell to Geri. The magic was never quite captured again. Third album “Forever” disappointed many fans as the songs were weak and the group were forced to grow up and abandon their original personas in the absence of their fifth member.

In re-iterating this brief history, I hope that I have succeeded in illustrating why the Spice Girls deserve both acknowledgement and recognition in a history of British music. For those 2 short years in the nineties, they more than certainly conquered the world. Moreover, they were not only a British group but unabashedly so. Not only in blatant gestures such as the infamous dress, but in their entire demeanour. For a particular generation they represent 1996-1998 better than anything else, and I can unashamedly say that they will always signify something special to me and undoubtedly to many others.

The first thing that people should know about 21st century middle class parenting, is that it is certainly a multi-faceted endeavour. As our society complicates itself even further, it seems that there are ever more aspects of child-rearing that parents need to consider. I observe that those most keenly worried about, include technology, education, outdoor play, and the subject of the post, diet.

I first began considering the subject following some brief comment amongst this Guardian article discussing the now infamous Olympic Park branch of McDonald’s, known for it’s status as the biggest in the world, and for the draconian rules that they have tried to impose on neighbouring food outlets within the grounds. The article itself begins with cautious observations on part of some new customers that we can assume are relatively well-to-do. One thing I noticed immediately (that will become more significant later) is that these families are exceptionally quick to point out their status as new customers to the establishment. Entirely unsurprisingly, the attached comment stream was largely filled with the right-thinking Guardianista remarks that I expected. Just as the people featured in the article had been, those assembled were fervent in stating their opposition to and abhorrence of McDonald’s. One comment that piqued my interest was an anecdote referring to the author’s friend who lived in Poland. He explained that his friend had a three year old son whom she had taken great care over the diet of (including only allowing him to drink water), who had come home from his nursery asking if she would take him to McDonald’s. This was a result of Ronald McDonald himself having visited his school and offered the children free toys. He detailed in horror that even though the mother had tried to feign ignorance of the existence of the Golden Arches, the cause was lost. Other contributors to the comment stream were similarly perturbed by the incident, as was I to an extent, myself not being a fan of aggressive marketing to children. However, I found myself alone in being somewhat more concerned that the aforementioned mother figure only allowed her child to drink water. Not only does this strike one as hideously over-zealous, but also raises concerns as to how healthy such a regime is for a growing child!

These objections tapped into my more general annoyance with the levels of paranoia mounting in 21st century middle class parenting. Among this, is the catastrophising of minor childhood nuances into incidents catalysing long term negative change in a child’s life. The problem of diet sits at the very core of this issue. Of course, I understand and respect the everyday basics of the trope. Children shouldn’t eat too too much food that is prone to affecting their mood or weight to an unhealthy degree, they should eat fruits and vegetables and try and get all their required vitamins and minerals. But I can’t help but feel that these concerns have evolved into something altogether more dangerous. We have gone from broadly wanting the best for our offspring, to obsession over minor detail and treating any lapses as some kind of trauma. You may wonder why I have chosen to pick on the middle class specifically. It’s simply because I see this as a thoroughly middle class phenomenon.

This notion became set in my mind whilst watching the 2nd episode of Grayson Perry’s excellent series of Channel 4 programmes regarding class and taste. This edition focused on the middle classes, and amongst the many eye-opening visits Perry makes on his travels, is one to a mother-and-baby group in a place now more a cliche than a real town, Tunbridge Wells. In a conversation between the artist and one of the new parents, a mother admits that her and her husband had spent the evening researching fromage frais with low sugar content after being aghast at the amount of the bad stuff lurking in the Petit Filous that her daughter enjoyed. I must admit, that as someone who has often considered herself lower middle class, I was relatively shocked by what I saw as ludicrous fretting on the part of this mother.

However, I knew already that this existed and is not something restricted to food. The mothers mentioned above were also all in resounding agreement over their worries about “toxic” baby clothing. And this subject first caught my attention when thinking instead about the decline of unsupervised outdoor play. All of these branches can be brought back to a central theme of control. Every parent wants what the best for their child, but in many cases it tends to come back to what they perceive to be the best. I believe that the mothers and fathers of today use the excuse of “responsible parenting” to introduce ever-more control into their children’s lives. Outdoor play is supervised supposedly for safety reasons, as opposed to parents wanting their children’s actions remaining under their critical eye at all times. Social lives and extra-curricular activities are organised in a manner that prioritises parental preferences and even allows them to weed out their child’s social contacts into the ones they most approve of, not wanting their kids to become attached to company that has the potential to lead them astray or influence them in a contrary manner. And keeping with the subject of the article, parents are desperate to instill their own beliefs in their children, including those regarding diet.

One of the replies I received when citing these objections was from one of these mothers, who took particular issue with the fact that I cited going to McDonald’s as a “treat” when trying to explain that letting your children eat food that is bad for them (but that they enjoy) every so often is not going to ruin their diet, nor is it going to ruin them as a person. She pondered why we couldn’t just tell children the “truth”, that McDonald’s is terrible, cheaply-made, overpriced food and that wasn’t special just because it came in a brightly coloured box. She felt that children needed to know that “decent ingredients prepared with skill and love is what makes food special.” Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree, I personally found this sentiment so sickly that it was harder to digest than the majority of the McDonald’s food this woman so loathes. Directly following this she suggests that having a homemade pizza-making party is an excellent alternative because it’s “great fun.” But what irritated me is what this woman presents so hardily as “the truth” is all merely her opinion. I’m not saying that she shouldn’t make her opinions known to her child, rather that she also allows the child to form their own. For example, it is for the child rather than the parent to decide whether they consider pizza-making parties “great fun.” Some parents not only appear to forget about their children’s autonomy, but are latently afraid of it, incase of the unthinkable instance that their son or daughter disagrees. This is something so evident in the mother’s later remarks suggesting that she is up against “sugar, salt and peer pressure”, inadvertently removing all responsibility from her own child for making their own decision to consume some food stuff, or indeed do anything, that she disapproves of.

I think the reason this incenses me so much is because I appear to remember my own childhood somewhat more than the new parents I am contending with. They seem to heap praise upon their bright little ones without crediting them with any real intelligence. As a youngster, I was given the freedom to do a lot of things that would probably make a lot of 21st century parents faint. Whilst I was raised primarily on a relatively healthy diet, I also consumed swathes of complete crap, occasionally against the wishes of my parents. I was allowed to play around outside extensively with a large ragtag group of kids from the local area, aged between 4 and 14. When I occupied the younger demographic of that crowd, around the age of 7 or 8, the older ones even told me about and my similarly aged friend about sex and swearing and all manner of other terrible things. However, the most important lesson I take away from this is that neither my diet nor this precarious experience of playing out has affected me negatively into adulthood. If anything, the latter provided me with valuable freedom and socialisation skills, which were particularly important considering my status as an only child. What bothers me the most is that the childhood experiences of these parents are often unlikely to be dissimilar to mine. It’s common to hear people of the generations slightly older than my own come over all nostalgic about their own unregulated childhoods fondly whilst completely denying the same to their own offspring. All of this whilst failing to realise that they have grown up to be successful and healthy adults completely unaffected by these aspects of their upbringing on the most part.

The middle classes seem to have got their wires crossed somewhere along the line. The parents’ concerns for their children’s wellbeings have become melded with their innate snobbery. They look to the less meticulous working classes and the way they raise their children, and have somehow managed to conclude that every feature of that lifestyle that they deem “wrong”, no matter how unassociated, contributes to a lack of academic and occupational success later in life that they so arrogantly associate with the working classes. This is obviously nonsense, but nonsense that I am increasingly convinced is unspoken received opinion amongst the middle classes. This is why the earlier Guardianistas were so determined to demonstrate their disapproval of McDonald’s to their highly critical peers. Internally, mum and dad are aware that one trip to McDonald’s is not going to kill little Jemima, but what would Tim and Felicity next door say if they found out? This all ties in with the attention to detail that Grayson Perry discovered was the utter preoccupation of the middle classes.

I am not asking middle class parents to throw caution to the wind, all I ask is that they learn to concentrate their infatuation with detail in areas that will evidently affect their children into adulthood, such as education. I also suggest that occasional experiment with risk is not the worst thing, if they truly want their kids to grow into the learned and well-rounded adults that they so desperately want them to be.

Did you spend your childhood eating crap and yet still have achieved success in adulthood? Please tell all via the comment box. I feel the intended audience for this piece will require more substantial convincing!